The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-05-15
The Law As TO HO tells.
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
GUESTS AND INK ELPERS.
How the Supreme Court Of the
United States Decided au I'm
pOrtant Case.


United States Decided au I'm
pOrtant Case.
TIE Supreme Court of the United
Sta'es has rendered a decision of par
Il :ular Importance to hotel keepers in
Missouri and of interest to hot.l keep
ers generally. 1t was case wherein 3
travelling salesm an for jswelry house
lost $4,000 worth OF property while
stopping at the p .apter's house, in ST
Louie. His room was entered while
he WAS absent aud he goods a strac ed
He brought suit against the lesses o.
the no,el in the United States Distric
Couit where the case was decided
for the defendents and on appeal the
United States Supr, ma Court aft med
the decision OF the court bslow, tina,
decision being to the effect that the
The plaintiff, having failed 10 give
" itten notice to the hotel n anagers
ncerning the ownership of this
property Immediately upon his ar
rival at the hotel, cannot, uuder the
laws of Missouri, bod the def ndsD Is
responsib for It's loss. The S1prema
Cou opinion was delivered by Jus-
tice Harlan and followed the Missouri
law Of 1856, relating to innkee pc e,
d the amendment OF 1872, and pro
viding written notice by the guest as
to property or merchsr disc being l
his nossession, etc, and as fellows:
No inn Keeper In this SAFE she'll be
labl for the loss Of any ba ygsgs or
other p opeity OF a guest ca ised by
fire not Intentionally produced by the
innhe9per or his servants; nor shall
he be liable for tie loss of any mer-
chandise for sale or sample be oaElng
TO a gus, unless the gu st shall have
given written notice Of having such
meIchandiss for sale or ssm ole in his
possession after entering tie inu, nor
shall the innkeeper be comp eled to
receive such guest with merchaDd 80
for sale or sample. Blu innkeepers
sball b. La lie for the losses of tpeir
guests caused by theft of such inn.
Keeper, or his servants, anything
herein TO the contrary notwithstaud.
ing.
justice Hara1 sums up tho inr-
keepers' visibility for from any
baggage, and cites Chancellur Kent,
who says that "if guest apolies for a
room in inn for a pu pose Of husi-
ness, distinct f'om his accomno1 Ia
lions rs guest, the particular spou-
siollity does not extsnd to goods lost
or stolen from that room" aud this W 10
the stale Of the law in NJ ssouri prior
to the passage of tue &C of
1872 abovs quoted. Jusiics Hsr
Ian goes N To discuss the law (
Nj ss)uri az folo~s:
Il is suggested thaH the purpose of
The acc Of 1872 was 10 prote ct innke D.
ers, and, therefore, actual knowIedse
that a guesF has in his possession
merchandise for sale, or, a. least, the
consent of tbs inakesper to the gue st 5
us OF room i'll his hotel for snch
pu'poss, should re deemed snffic emf
to tAstsn uoon the iuukeeper r. sponsi-
nifty fnr the safety Of such meichau.
disc. 1t seems t. us that the c:s.,ute
is 6quely for the Der eft Of travelling
alesmen. Be this as it may. ss lbe
law in regard to the Ii bility
of an inDkeepsr is one of ex.
tEeme Iigor, he should not BE-
h I'D to any responsibility b4youd
that arising from TIE relation OF inn
keeper and guest, unless, at least, the
circumstances show that be distinctly
agreed to assume such additional re-.
sp1nsibiity. There ia no pr4ienss il
this case that tne de fe ndants made an
express agreement of that cha -scter
Nor ca / such an agreement be implied
merely from the knowle 'He o. the
part OF the innkeeper that a guest h 10 in
his possession in he hotel, for exnibi-
ton or tale, merchandise fvr the "a e
custody of which he is not ordins.
Tily responsible. Such knowledge i'm
plies nothing more upon the rt OF
the innkeeper than his assent 10 the use
OF his rooms for purposes Of thai kind.
If, as to such merchandise, IL is in
tended 10 hold the iDnkeeper 10 the
strict liability i'm pose at the common
law, in resp c. o the baggage or other
personal property cf guest, the stat
ute inficAtes the m lde in which that
intention must be manifested. The
guest must give notice of such inten-
tion. Aud as ths notice is expressly
required to be in writing, no other
form OF notice can he deemed q com.
pliance with the statute.
The Tennessee statute as to inn
keepers does not contsin any section
similar 10 the Missouri amendment as
to giving written notics as to SAMPLES,
etc but the opinion of Jostica Harlan
can ,asily te applied to the tennessee
laws on the subj eCt, which is as fol-
lows:
27S7-"Whenever the proprietor OF
any hotel or inn shall provide a safe
in the Office in sIch hotel or inn, or
other convenient place, for the cafe
keeping Of any money, jewels or orna.
ments belonging to the guests of such
hotel or in, or for any samples Of mer-
chandise OF any kind carried by drum
ners or commercial travellers, aud
shall notify the CUES thereof by post
ng notice (staIing the fact that such
isfe or other convenient place in which
money, jowels, ornaments or samples
nay be depositsd) ia the room or
'ooms occupied by such guests in a
manner. II euch guests
hall neglect to deposit eueh money,
wells, ornauents or samples of mer-
'hsndise in fueh safe or other convsn-
emit place, the proprietor stall not
70 liable for any loss Of such money,
ewes, ornaments or samples of mer-
handiee sustained by such guest, by
heft or otherwise"